Irreducible Complexity - If you believe this, what's your main example?

[Bombila]

Every biological system so far examined has been shown to be reducibly complex. Certainly every example brought forward by IDists has proven to be reducible, which makes one wonder why ID 'scientists' don't ever complete their work. If they were responsible scientists (which they claim to be), they wouldn't be so easily caught out by other scientists, because they would have carried out their research on examples like the eye or the flagellum extensively enough to realize that these were not tenable examples of irreducible complexity.

 

[Bombila]

How was the complexity of the eye reduced?

In this very thread, it is briefly described. In this very forum, it has been explained countless times. An internet search will net you thousands of careful explanations with lots of pictures.

If you want to know, seek the answers which are so easily available.

 

[juvenissun]

Obviously the first cells most definitely wouldn't be as complex as we see them today, just like the first eyes were nothing more than simple light sensitive cells ...

Two possible threads:

1. Is the "simple" light sensitive cell really simple, or is it still very complex?

2. Is it still "simple" or in fact, very complex for the simple cell to evolve into the next slightly complex cell?

I don't see either thread is simple. In fact, I don't think any one in this world can answer the question.

 

[juvenissun]

In this very thread, it is briefly described. In this very forum, it has been explained countless times. An internet search will net you thousands of careful explanations with lots of pictures.

If you want to know, seek the answers which are so easily available.

Based on your attitude, this forum can be closed. Nobody needs to argue on anything. Simply go back to study. Everything you can think of has already be studied extensively.

The art of understanding is be able to reduce hundreds of research results to a few sentences or paragraphs. So new idea has room to spring up.

 

[shinbits]

are soap bubbles intelligently designed?

soap bubbles are not intelligently designed. but soap is. nice try.

oh, please elaborate why it could not have arisen from chance. so far you have simply demonstrated an argument from ignorance. YOU cant see how the universe could have come about by chance, this does not mean that it could not have come about naturally. You need to show through science why it cant.

even though the soap which caused the bubbles are intelligently designed? reconsider who's demontrating ignorance here.

However I can in fact see how it could have come about naturally. The same as the way a soap bubble comes about. It simply does. No one makes the soap bubbles round.

but people do make the soap.

 

[shinbits]

Oh and before you say things about the universe please do educate yourself a bit on the subject. I've seen practically every English documentary on the subject out there. Have you seen even one video on star formation?
We know exactly how solar systems form. The formation and death of stars if what drives it all.

1) we don't know "exactly" how these things formed, we can only postulate

2) how does the formation and death of stars cause stars before stars even existed?

Look who's talking on needing to be educated.

We know exactly what goes on inside a star, what elements is fuses into a higher element and at what point, WHEN the star will explode and what the results will be (supernova, white dwarf, black hole, etc). We even use certain type of exploding stars (type 1a) as beacons of distance measurement because it will always have the exact same brightness.

see above

Not only is your post major off topic it also has absolutely nothing useful to say and you didn't answer any of the questions I've asked you to answer IF you have proof of irreducible complexity in the context of evolution.
So please, give your example for evolutionary irreducible complexity or get out with your "galaxy by chance" argument.

as the above shows, you're just crabby because you don't have a good argument. but I'll condescend to your little terms.


In answer to your question, there is no proof of irreducible complexity in terms of evolution, because that is a subjective term.

 

[shinbits]

So a higher power made it all? which itself arose by mere chance? no, the higher power is much too complex for that,
so that also had to be designed and made by a much higher power

not at all. the designer could have always been there. since matter can niether be created nor destroyed, that means matter has always been there in some form---which shows that science agrees with the fact that something could have always been there.

there goes that.

 

[MoonLancer]

soap bubbles are not intelligently designed. but soap is. nice try...even though the soap which caused the bubbles are intelligently designed? reconsider who's demontrating ignorance here.

I think it would be you. the laws of nature that gives rise to soap bubbles round are the same laws that give rise to all natural occurring spherical phenomena. It is these laws that govern the solar system as well, along with the cells in our body and the symmetry of our bodies.

although all you could think of was that soap bubbles came from soap. are you saying that bubbles diden't exist before man created soap? or are you just being coy in the face of a failed argument?

 

[shinbits]

I think it would be you. the laws of nature that gives rise to soap bubbles round are the same laws that give rise to all natural occurring spherical phenomena. It is these laws that govern the solar system as well, along with the cells in our body and the symmetry of our bodies.

this is missing the point entirely. soap is intelligently designed.

although all you could think of was that soap bubbles came from soap. are you saying that bubbles diden't exist before man created soap? or are you just being coy in the face of a failed argument?

no, that's exactly the point. just like with soap, bubbles made from other liquids such as water, are formed from something which was intelligently designed.

 

[Ectezus]

you're just crabby because you don't have a good argument. but I'll condescend to your little terms.

Excuse me? So far your only argument has been "Scientists can't yet explain what happened before the big bang, therefore god did it!"

The origin of matter? Yes, that's a hard question.
After matter exists however... Practically everything can be explained extremely detailed and can be used to make accurate predictions.

If you believe in god because we don't yet know about the origin of matter then I won't argue against that.
If you however claim that the universe is much too complicated and this is a major reason for you to believe in god then I'm afraid I can't attribute that to anything other than lack of knowledge about astronomy.

 

[shinbits]

Excuse me? So far your only argument has been "Scientists can't yet explain what happened before the big bang, therefore god did it!"

um, no. nowhere did I say anything close. I pointed out how wrong u are in saying that we know "exactly" how stars, galaxies and solar systems were formed.

The origin of matter? Yes, that's a hard question.
After matter exists however... Practically everything can be explained extremely detailed and can be used to make accurate predictions.

accurate predictions, yes. accurate accounts of how these things came to be? no. no one is sure, we can only postulate.

If you believe in god because we don't yet know about the origin of matter then I won't argue against that.
If you however claim that the universe is much too complicated and this is a major reason for you to believe in god then I'm afraid I can't attribute that to anything other than lack of knowledge about astronomy.

1) it's ALREADY been explained to you: matter can niether be created nor destroyed. there is no "origin" of matter, it's always existed.

2) How does saying that the universe is too complex to arise by random chance show lack of knowledge? Why don't you try explaining your assertions.

 

[Ectezus]

1. Is the "simple" light sensitive cell really simple, or is it still very complex?

Juvenissun, if you doubt whether a light sensitive cell could have formed or not that's a very valid question (I can assure you it can) but it goes one step beyond the point of most irriducible complexity arguments.

Now if you want to go into the absolute smallest detail then be my guest, there are plenty of good books on this subject out there.
I however am not going into full detail on a celluar level because it will take me too much time to explain to someone who doesn't fully understand the foundation of biology, ie: evolution.

I have explained to you the steps to go from just a single cell to something that closely resembles the eye we see today with just gradual steps AND with each of those steps having a benefit over the earlier step.
Can you at least admit the gradual steps I've posted are reasonable to assume and there is nothing irriducible about it concerning those steps?

If you have more questions regarding a complex biological system that at first hand seems irreducible I'll gladly answer those.

this is missing the point entirely. soap is intelligently designed.

Shinbits, are you seriously discussing whether your god created soap or not?

I'm not sure why you're talking about inanimate matter to be honest.
Soap has nothing, I repeat, noting to do with evolution because:

Soap is not subject to mutations as it is not alive.
Soap is not subject to natural selection.

Those two are the main principles of evolution!
Using inanimate matter in an evolution topic is beyond belief stupidity. It shows an UTTER lack of understanding of the theory.

Evolution only explains the origin of species. Not the origin of life, not the origin of matter, not the origin of gravity and certainly not the origin of soap bubbles.

The topic is about irriducible complexity in biology. Could we please stay on topic?

- Ectezus

 

[shinbits]

Shinbits, are you seriously discussing whether your god created soap or not?

roflz. I'm answering your question to the example YOU brought up.

I'm not sure why you're talking about inanimate matter to be honest.
Soap has nothing, I repeat, noting to do with evolution because:

YOU brought up soap. I responded to it. You responded to my response, and I answered back. That's how we got here. Now you're trying to distract from your failing argument, by implying that I don't know what this discussion is about. I TOLD you that I'd answer your question on the EXACT subject---and did. Yet that's the one thing you haven't responded to.

Man, you're being quite the joke here.

Soap is not subject to mutations as it is not alive.
Soap is not subject to natural selection.

Those two are the main principles of evolution!
Using inanimate matter in an evolution topic is beyond belief stupidity. It shows an UTTER lack of understanding of the theory.

see above.

Evolution only explains the origin of species. Not the origin of life, not the origin of matter, not the origin of gravity and certainly not the origin of soap bubbles.

The topic is about irriducible complexity in biology. Could we please stay on topic?

- Ectezus

see above.

 

[Ectezus]

roflz. I'm answering your question to the example YOU brought up.


YOU brought up soap. I responded to it. You responded to my response, and I answered back. That's how we got here. Now you're trying to distract from your failing argument, by implying that I don't know what this discussion is about. I TOLD you that I'd answer your question on the EXACT subject---and did. Yet that's the one thing you haven't responded to.

Man, you're being quite the joke here.


see above.


see above.

Wow....
I did not bring up any soap or any bubbles lol. Go back to page 1 and look it up as it was MoonLancer who asked you that question. Stop being a liar Shinbits.


As for your question:

2) How does saying that the universe is too complex to arise by random chance show lack of knowledge? Why don't you try explaining your assertions.

Wait a sec... So because you don't understand how all the currently available knowledge explains the universe I have to explain to you how it's not 'too' complex?

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. It's an off topic discussion and you make the assumption that it's all too complex. That's an intelectually dead end as you've already made up your mind.

We have a lot of models that remove all the 'random chance' (as you love put it) and explain extremely well how solar systems and such are formed.

 

[shinbits]

Wow....
I did not bring up any soap or any bubbles lol. Go back to page 1 and look it up as it was MoonLancer who asked you that question. Stop being a liar Shinbits.

someone seems to have a terrible memory:

Shinbits, are you seriously discussing whether your god created soap or not?

YOU brought up it, when YOU quoted a post not even adressed to you---and an erroneous response at that, since no one discussed dieties making soap.

Wait a sec... So because you don't understand how all the currently available knowledge explains the universe I have to explain to you how it's not 'too' complex?

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. It's an off topic discussion and you make the assumption that it's all too complex. That's an intelectually dead end as you've already made up your mind.

I ask you to back up your assertions, and you respond by claiming I have no knowledge of cosmology? Way to make a logical argument.

We have a lot of models that remove all the 'random chance' (as you love put it) and explain extremely well how solar systems and such are formed.

simply having a model doesn't mean it's the least bit true. there are many theories and models of JFK's assassination. Doesn't mean anyone of them are are accurate, since no one really knows who was behind it. That's why I asked you to back up your assertions. But it seems you are unable to, and resort infantile ad-homs.

 

[gaara4158]

RE: Soap

I believe Shinbits is suggesting that soap is "intelligently designed" by humans, not by God. If so, I'm afraid you've missed the point, S. It doesn't matter if the soap originated from the poo of magical sheep from another planet; the bubbles form because they are following the laws of physics, not because some intelligent designer said "let there be bubbles!" In the same way, it doesn't matter if life originated from a noodly appendage or from the sneeze of a goblin; life has diversified because it follows the laws of nature, not because some creator invented them all individually.

So stop thinking about soap, keep your cool, and address the issues.

 

[Ectezus]

someone seems to have a terrible memory:


YOU brought up it, when YOU quoted a post not even adressed to you---and an erroneous response at that, since no one discussed dieties making soap.

Shinbit you've been discussion soap and soap bubbles for 3 pages now and I only asked you on THIS page why you were actually seriously discussing it.
Saying I brought up the first soap issue is a flat out LIE.

You've just lost all credibility.

I'm done with you. The first thing you brought into this topic was immaterial arguments in a discussion that is about living systems.
Going into a discussion with an offtopic argument and ending it with calling the other one a liar. Nicely done!

 

[sbvera13]

not at all. the designer could have always been there. since matter can niether be created nor destroyed, that means matter has always been there in some form---which shows that science agrees with the fact that something could have always been there.

there goes that.

And there goes the argument from complexity, as well. If you're willing to admit that theres a point where causation ends, why do you say that point is a designer and not matter?

 

[shinbits]

RE: Soap

I believe Shinbits is suggesting that soap is "intelligently designed" by humans, not by God. If so, I'm afraid you've missed the point, S. It doesn't matter if the soap originated from the poo of magical sheep from another planet; the bubbles form because they are following the laws of physics, not because some intelligent designer said "let there be bubbles!" In the same way, it doesn't matter if life originated from a noodly appendage or from the sneeze of a goblin; life has diversified because it follows the laws of nature, not because some creator invented them all individually.

So stop thinking about soap, keep your cool, and address the issues.

soap bubbles was brought up by moonlancer as an argument against ID, by trying to say that ID had nothing to do with it, which fails because ID had everything to do with the creation of the soap the bubble came from, making his point moot. Likewise, as far as the shape of the bubbles, the very laws the cause the shape of the bubbles, are also a result of ID.

That was the point.

 

[shinbits]

Shinbit you've been discussion soap and soap bubbles for 3 pages now and I only asked you on THIS page why you were actually seriously discussing it.
Saying I brought up the first soap issue is a flat out LIE.

You've just lost all credibility.

nice try. I never said you brought it up first. you just added in your own words, thereby making a lie.

talk about lost credibility.

I'm done with you. The first thing you brought into this topic was immaterial arguments in a discussion that is about living systems.
Going into a discussion with an offtopic argument and ending it with calling the other one a liar. Nicely done!

so far, you've shown you have a terrible memory, and been shown to add words to things people didn't even say, and then get mad at them for it. On top of that, when I did answer your exact question, you totally skipped it.

So if you're "done" with me, I thank you, since you excell at dragging your own thread off topic.